What about a thread for good news?

User avatar
Büge
Posts: 3050
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:56 pm

Re: What about a thread for good news?

Postby Büge » Sat Nov 03, 2018 11:08 am

Mongrel wrote:(long ass pic)


Wow. Just like how the Mafia fought the Nazi movement growing in the US during the '30s.
Image

User avatar
Mongrel
Posts: 12312
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
Location: Canadumb

Re: What about a thread for good news?

Postby Mongrel » Mon Nov 26, 2018 7:30 pm

A Dutch church has been conducting religious services for 27 days to protect a refugee family

By law, police officers in The Netherlands are not allowed to enter places of worship during religious services. So, reverends from around the country have taken turns holding services at Bethel Church to prevent officials from arresting the Tamrazyan family, who have been in The Netherlands for nine years. “By giving hospitality to this family, we could give them time and place to [demonstrate] to the secretary of state the … urgency of their situation,” Theo Hettema, chairman of the General Council of Protestant Ministers says.
Image

atog
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2017 1:49 pm

Re: What about a thread for good news?

Postby atog » Mon Nov 26, 2018 8:04 pm

Pakistani deputy sup't of Police foils terror attack on Chinese consulate in Karachi, gets her promotion

"...and stop giving my dad shit bout letting his daughter go to police academy. Continuing to do so constitutes resisting a direct peace order. Questions?"
Placeholder for something witty that doesn't make me sound like an asshole

User avatar
Mongrel
Posts: 12312
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
Location: Canadumb

Re: What about a thread for good news?

Postby Mongrel » Fri Jan 04, 2019 1:46 pm

Image

User avatar
mharr
Posts: 575
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2016 11:54 am
Location: UK

Re: What about a thread for good news?

Postby mharr » Fri Jan 04, 2019 2:56 pm

And for a bonus point is the spit of Richard Ayoade.

User avatar
mharr
Posts: 575
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2016 11:54 am
Location: UK

Re: What about a thread for good news?

Postby mharr » Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:52 pm

Tom Francis wrote:I see what my brain is doing. There’ll always be enough uncertainty in my life that I can delay a donation in the name of caution. But I don’t think that loop ends on iteration 3 or 4, so I’m cutting it short now. I’m giving $25,000 to the Against Malaria Foundation and another $25,000 to GiveDirectly.


https://www.pentadact.com/2019-02-08-charity

User avatar
Büge
Posts: 3050
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:56 pm

Re: What about a thread for good news?

Postby Büge » Fri Mar 08, 2019 2:25 pm

Image

User avatar
Mongrel
Posts: 12312
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
Location: Canadumb

Re: What about a thread for good news?

Postby Mongrel » Fri Mar 08, 2019 2:44 pm

Definitely good news, but I'm not exactly going to jump for joy until that passes the Senate.

Still, it'll be a great look to force Republican senators to vote it down, so even making them do that is a win of sorts.

If they can find anybody in the Democratic party with half a brain to push for it, they'll be able to pound them with "REPUBLICANS VOTED AGAINST DEMOCRACY!" ads.
Image

User avatar
Thad
Posts: 6618
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2014 10:05 am
Location: 1611 Uranus Avenue
Contact:

Re: What about a thread for good news?

Postby Thad » Sat Mar 09, 2019 12:55 am

It'll never get to a floor vote in the Senate.

User avatar
mharr
Posts: 575
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2016 11:54 am
Location: UK

Re: What about a thread for good news?

Postby mharr » Sat Mar 09, 2019 2:30 am

Not that I'm against checks and balances in principle, but why do they never seem to delay the shitty ideas?

User avatar
hngkong
Posts: 184
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 7:29 am

Re: What about a thread for good news?

Postby hngkong » Sat Mar 09, 2019 9:04 am

Because doing good things takes effort, but doing evil things is easy?

User avatar
Mongrel
Posts: 12312
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
Location: Canadumb

Re: What about a thread for good news?

Postby Mongrel » Sat Mar 09, 2019 2:52 pm

Thad wrote:It'll never get to a floor vote in the Senate.

So you figure they'll do a procedural kill? Makes sense.

What method are you thinking of? I don't know enough about Senate process to make a guess as to which method would be used. Committee stage?
Image

User avatar
Bal
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:13 pm

Re: What about a thread for good news?

Postby Bal » Sat Mar 09, 2019 3:13 pm

The Majority Leader is under no obligation to bring any legislation to the Senate floor. McConnell won't even risk talking about it.

User avatar
Mongrel
Posts: 12312
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
Location: Canadumb

Re: What about a thread for good news?

Postby Mongrel » Sat Mar 09, 2019 3:15 pm

Bal wrote:The Majority Leader is under no obligation to bring any legislation to the Senate floor.

Wow I never realized it was that absolute.

TIL!
Image

User avatar
Brentai
Woah Dangsaurus
Posts: 2435
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 2:40 pm

Re: What about a thread for good news?

Postby Brentai » Sat Mar 09, 2019 6:03 pm

Bal wrote:McConnell won't even risk talking about it.


On the other hand you couldn't ask for a more clear-cut argument for abolishing the Senate. A majority-approaching-supermajority of citizens believe a crime - likely even a treason - has been committed and is continuing to be committed by the Executive branch, a motion to check has been put forward by the Legislative branch, and one guy from Kentucky (population: 26 out of 50) gets to stonewall it for the express purpose of moving the Judicial branch further away from public opinion. From every angle the Senate is performing its intended function of defying democracy. And justice, but nobody cares about justice.

It's a political power play only if you believe that it's impossible to ever actually rewrite the Constitution at such a low level. But, if it gets crystallized into such a clear-cut problem that over 66.6% of our democracy agrees that checks and balances have broken down and it all comes down to a single turkey-necked point of failure, well, the social contract either gets amended or the people start looking into alternatives.
Image

User avatar
Thad
Posts: 6618
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2014 10:05 am
Location: 1611 Uranus Avenue
Contact:

Re: What about a thread for good news?

Postby Thad » Mon Mar 11, 2019 12:23 am

Mongrel wrote:
Bal wrote:The Majority Leader is under no obligation to bring any legislation to the Senate floor.

Wow I never realized it was that absolute.

It isn't quite absolute. There are exceptions, but this isn't one of them.

Brentai wrote:On the other hand you couldn't ask for a more clear-cut argument for abolishing the Senate.


I still think a bicameral legislature is a good idea, but...yeah, can't say as I'm a big fan of the one we've got now. Not sure what a better alternative would be -- maybe make the Senate and the House both (approximately) proportionate, but greatly increase the number of House seats?

A majority-approaching-supermajority of citizens believe a crime - likely even a treason - has been committed and is continuing to be committed by the Executive branch, a motion to check has been put forward by the Legislative branch, and one guy from Kentucky (population: 26 out of 50) gets to stonewall it for the express purpose of moving the Judicial branch further away from public opinion. From every angle the Senate is performing its intended function of defying democracy. And justice, but nobody cares about justice.


There was a pretty good Tim Wu piece in the NYT last week titled The Oppression of the Supermajority.

It's a political power play only if you believe that it's impossible to ever actually rewrite the Constitution at such a low level. But, if it gets crystallized into such a clear-cut problem that over 66.6% of our democracy agrees that checks and balances have broken down and it all comes down to a single turkey-necked point of failure, well, the social contract either gets amended or the people start looking into alternatives.


Yeah, that's the thing Republicans don't seem to get right now: while the populace does, in general, respect the ideas of checks and balances and states' rights, it hasn't exactly escaped our notice that the last two Republican presidents were elected with less than a plurality of the popular vote, those guys are responsible for four out of the five Republican votes on the Supreme Court, and the Senate is explicitly designed to represent the states and not the people (senators weren't even elected until about a century ago). Maybe, just maybe, a system designed for thirteen states and a voting population consisting of white male landowners has not scaled effectively to handle 50 states and a voting population of every citizen aged 18 or older.

The Republican Party in general, and McConnell in particular, seem to be oriented toward grabbing everything that isn't nailed down and not caring about the consequences.

I fear we're approaching the point JFK spoke about where peaceful revolution is impossible and violent revolution is inevitable.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests